About your Search

20121121
20121129
STATION
CNNW 5
MSNBCW 5
CSPAN 1
LANGUAGE
English 20
Search Results 0 to 19 of about 20 (some duplicates have been removed)
denied al qaeda's lead role in the attack on the u.s. consulate in benghazi that cost the lives of ambassador chris stevens and three others and she did so knowing it was true. well, the man who defeated mccain in the 2008 presidential campaign takes this as a personal shot at him. how will he respond? will he name ambassador rice his new secretary of state to replace hillary clinton? will he meet mccain's challenge head on and send rice up to the capitol to go face-to-face with the enemy? tonight we study the battlefield and the firepower of the two sides in this year-ending fire fight. mccain sure wants this fight, but do his fellow republicans? do they want an older white guy taking on the competence of a young woman of color, a rhodes scholar of solid reputation? most important, what end does the president want for this match of fact and wits? i'm joined by michael o'hanlon of the brookings institution and jonathan landay. the intelligence reporter for mcclatchy newspapers. michael, thank you for this. i want to get to the facts. am i right, is the main charge here coming fr
. the unclassified talking points she used were provided by the cia, were stripped of these references to al qaeda, because the information was classified and couldn't be delivered in public. now, after the meeting, ambassador rice acknowledged those talking points turned out to be incorrect. but that she stressed she and the administration never meant to mislead the american people. and what the senators are saying is, as a cabinet member, ambassador rice is privy to this conflicting information, she should have been more discerning when she went on those talk shows, and that the secretary of state should ambassador rice be nominated needs more independent, not just held to party lines. let's take a listen to what senators graham and ayotte said yesterday after those meetings. >> bottom line, i'm more disturbed now than i was before. >> certainly she misled the american public. i think that she would say that. she'd have to say that. >> now, soledad, ambassador rice is not without her supporters. democrats on the hill say rice's republican critics are still the ones politicizing the benghazi atta
by dr. rice. >> as i understand it, the explanation is that that was being withheld, the al-qaeda involvement was -- that point of the talking points was being withheld for classified reasons, but i also explored didn't you question that because that left, if you were to omit that portion, it leaves a very different impression to the american people and frankly, i didn't get a satisfactory answer to that. >> bill: joining us from washington to react, fox news analyst charles krauthammer. so bigger mess now than it's ever been. here is my assessment based on what happened today. i'm going to go on the record. this is what i think is going to happen and you can tell me if i'm right or wrong in your i think that the white house and the obamaeelection committee, all right, that means david axelrod, basically said that after the murder of the ambassador, they were going to tamp the story down so it didn't intrude on their narrative that the obama administration had decimated al-qaeda. so they ordered dr. rice, the ambassador to the u.n., to go out on the sunday shows and say that the s
at you, this was an al qaeda storm in the making. i'm very disappointed in our intelligence community, i think they failed in many ways, but with a little bit of inquiry and curiosity, i think it would be pretty clear that to explain this episode as related that created a mob that turned into a riot was far filled. and at the end of the day, we're going to get to the bottom of this. we have to have a system that we can trust. and if you don't know what happened, just say you don't know what happened. people can push you to give explanations and you can say i don't want to give bad information. here's what i can tell you -- the american people got bad information on 16 september, they got bad information from president obama days after, and the question is, should they have been giving the information at all? if you can do nothing but give bad information, isn't it better to give no information at all? so my belief is, not only is the information bad and i'm more convinced than ever that it was bad, it was unjustified to give the scenario as presented by ambassador rice and president obam
interviews saying that the obama administration has decimated al qaeda. what senator ayotte and other senators have said is that was misleading because she knew in a classified way that al qaeda might have been behind it. so that is what one -- two of the reasons why at least senator ayotte said that she is troubled. and she said that she is still not ready to say that she will vote for her. not only that, but she's still -- she still has a threat to block her nomination if susan rice is nominated. >> and is that the end of it, or are there future meetings? is there going to be more consultation, or is that that? >> reporter: no, that is not that. that is the beginning of this for sure. we understand that the ambassador is likely to be back later today for more meetings. ted barrett heard from the republican from tennessee that he has a meeting with susan rice tomorrow. again, just like today's meeting. that was at the request of susan rice. she is definitely making the rounds. she's trying to explain herself. but at least with these three republican senators this morning who were --
's certainly clear from the beginning that we knew that those with ties to al qaeda were involved in the attack on the embassy. and clearly the impression that was given, the information given to the american people, was wrong. in fact, ambassador rice said today, absolutely it was wrong. i don't understand the cia said clearly that that information was wrong. >> dana bash, let me bring you in, senior congressional correspondent, i think i saw you in the crush of reporters earlier today on the hill. set me straight. heading into this closed door meeting, the story was the senators seemed to be -- or john mccain seemed to be backing off some of the criticism of ambassador rice, and in listening to that stakeout and the three senators i'm hearing words like troubled and failed and bad. what happened in the meeting? >> reporter: well, the reason i'm told that they did soften the rhetoric and they did going into this meeting is because susan rice requested a meeting and the senators said that they felt that it was the right thing to do to kind of ease up on her publicly while they were waiting to h
groups in libya. we did nothing to help them. as a result of that the al qaeda and those affiliated groups have undue influence and the benghazi debacle is a result of that. bill: can we do anything about that when you consider the politics operating internally within these countries? >> in my own mind there is plenty we can do. right now engage in libya and let's get a security force and let's start gaining some control in that country and pushing back on the radicals. let's choose a side on the war taking place in syria and start helping the moderate rebels. even the united kingdom is looking towards doing something like that. why sit on the fence and turn it over to the rad cat islamists and the al qaeda which may be the case. bill: there is a power vacuum in the world. that's clear to see. jack keane, i appreciate your analysis. martha: coming up, a lurid tale of money and murder as a woman goes on trial accused of defriending a jackpot -- befriending a jackpot winner. she conned him out of the money and then she killed them. the drama that's unfolding in court. >> i'm telling y
. -- we knew that those with ties to al qaeda were involved. they knew by the 22nd that the information given to them was wrong, yet they have not cleared that up with the american people to date in saying they were wrong, including the president of the united states. host: the new hampshire senator went on to say she will block any clinton's successor, because she wants more information about the benghazi attacks. what is next on that front? since an individual senator can put a hold on a nomination. that could prevent this from going forward. we have seen this in previous cases. if we saw this in the bush and administration would john bolton. we have seen it in a couple of cases in the obama administration where nominee for a high government post was held up for a long time. it all depends in the end on whether kelly ayotte gets any allies from her fellow republicans on this, because the way you could overcome her individual opposition is to get about five republicans that the democrats would need to break any filibuster that she might muster. i suspect, based on what i've seen of the
for defense of democracy reveals u.s. interests in egypt, yes, ma'amen and tunisia were targeted by al-qaeda, in addition to their raid on the consulate in benefiting and the memo reads, quote, while much of the public debate has focused on the attack in benghazi alone, they deserve closer scrutiny. they are related to the al-qaeda network. ambassador rice is still recorded adds the front run torre place hillary clinton, although democratic senator dick durbin said yesterday he's not sure she could get the 60 votes needed for senate confirmation and he would try to get the votes together, but it's up to the president to nominate her first. >> steve: peter, thank you very much. her offensive yesterday was when the going gets tough, you got critics, go talk to them face-to-face. instead of making it better, she actually made it worse. then she brought along the acting director of the c.i.a. and he completely botched it. they were asked okay, so who changed the talking points? the c.i.a. guy said yep, i did. well, they called about 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon and the c.i.a. told capitol hill,
not to say because we didn't want al qaeda to know we knew it at that point. the real question is why is mccain making this attack and wasting whatever political capital and reputation he has left? >> reporter: well, some people are wondering does mccain want to simply stay in the spotlight? mccain is known for foreign policy. he's known for going on sunday shows. the benghazi issue gets him back in the spotlight. everyone is talking about john mccain again. so some people wonder if there's a little bit of political opportunism there. >> i want to go back to something krystal said a minute ago. closing ranks behind susan rice because much political battle lines in this. you made the point earlier if you just looked at this without regard to benghazi and said john mccain realistically speaking, who potentially could appoint secretary of state that would agree ideological with you. realistically susan rice is as good as he can do. the consensus in the democratic party is probably to the right of it. i wonder is there any push-back from the left or from democrats in washington toward the admin
al-qaeda -- the taliban seems enmeshed and woven into the fabric of society. what have we accomplished? >> the book traces this one outpost from 2006 until 2009 when overrun by the taliban. in 2007-2008, that's a part of the narrative when there actually is very tangible achievement and the u.s. and the afghan government is willing to win over the local populous and get them to start casting out the terrorists in the villages and hamlets and this one lieutenant, alex newsom who was in afghanistan early this year doing special operations missions, says that when he went back to this area, the people there all remembered him. they were still anti-taliban. they were still willing to fight. he was very encouraged. as i said, he's in the minority there. but it wasn't as if all of these individuals, all of a sudden became taliban. mainly they don't want anyone bothering them. >> eliot: that's the question. no doubt. our presence there can have that affirmative effect. was it possible -- is it possible to argue tha
by al qaeda affiliates but, rather, that it had begun with a protest that we nownow was nonexistent and that it was linked to a video, which we also know is not accurate. at the time ambassador rice made these assertions, there was conflicting evidence it is true but we had the president of libya saying that 50 people had been a resident, that people, terrorists from other countries had come to libya, and that the attack was premeditated and planned. i asked ambassador rice why she did not qualify her comments more in light of this contradictory reporting from the president of the country. her answer was that she relied on our intelligence analysis. i don't understand why she would not have at least qualified her response to that question. i'm also very troubled by the fact that we seem not to have learned from the 1998 bombings of two of our embassies in africa at the time when ambassador rice was the assistant secretary for african affairs. those bombings in 1998 resulted in the loss of life of 12 americans as well as many other foreign nationals and 4,000 people were injured. wha
in may 2003 that we found the wmds in iraq. dick cheney and condoleezza rice talked about links to al qaeda in iraq. you've never made up for those huge, serious, significant lies in the arena of foreign policy. and now you're picking apart, you know, basically the very early and ultimately not misleading with regard to foreign policy decisions, statements that this diplomat made. >> one thing we're learning right now the meeting with ambassador rice and senator corker is happening as we speak so a little earlier than that noontime appointment. but the one thing we heard also from senator barrasso in the last hour was john considerry's name floated out and it would be easier for him to sail through. you had the opportunity to work with john kerry before. >> sure. >> when we hear about this, is that really what the game, as joy-ann said, this machiavellian game, basically let's get kerry in this position and then scott brown could take over his seat, run for that seat in massachusetts, we get scott brownbach in? >> this is a little delicate because i know so many people involved. this
ago from the former c.i.a. director who said i thought it was al-qaeda within 24 hours. it was edited out. they said, oh, those, i touched it, essentially politics enters in. if she says i went by this paper, what kind secretary of state goes by this paper and doesn't use all her plethora of contacts to find out what the real story is? >> steve: exactly. keep in mind, in addition to the unclassified talking points she works also had access to the classified. so she knew it really was happening. bill o'reilly was talking to john mccain about this last night and here is a little of their conversation. >> is she a dishonest woman, senator? is she dishonest? did she go out there knowing what she said was false and say it anyway? that's the crux of this matter. >> i don't think it was a matter of dishonesty. it was a matter, again, of responsibility. there was plenty of information out there, which she has access to, which contradicted what she said. if you're telling the american people, speaking for the white house, it was the white house that sent her out, off responsibility to make sur
al-qaeda, jon. jon: still so many questions left to answer. catherine herridge, thank you. >> reporter: you're welcome. jon: well, both senators mccabe and ayotte will appear on fox news channel earlier today. senator ayotte will speak with megyn kelly on "america live" which comes to you right after "happening now." and then on your world, 4 p.m. eastern time, neil cavuto will talk with senator mccain, his first formal interview since today's meeting with ambassador rice, you'll want to hear what both senators have to say. jenna: new concerns right now, the president and republicans may not be able to reach a deal on that looming fiscal cliff. the president meeting with small business owners at the white house despite signs that talks are stalling on capitol hill. james rosen is live at the white house and, james, just last week folks were saying there's some optimism coming out of these talks. why now is there a feeling that maybe things respect going as well? >> reporter: let's face it, jenna, a trained observer could be forgiving for serving the state of these fiscal c
, what happened is he told the senators that it was actually the fbi who took al qaeda references out of the unclassified talking points. only to call back several hours later saying, oops, i was wrong, it wasn't the fbi, it was the cia. here is what lindsey graham said about that. >> i can't help but feel incredibly disappointed that we were told something at 10:00 a.m. that couldn't withstand scrutiny for six hours. and is totally inconsistent with what we were told the day before. we have five different explanations of who changed the talking points to take out benghazi. and four different reasons. this is becoming a joke. >> so what these meetings least this particular issue has done is added fuel to the fire and it is not like, you needed to add any more fuel to the fire, especially for senators like lindsey graham who is already really publicly outraged about a lot of issues dealing with the benghazi attack. >> this is just one more. one more. dana bash, thank you. >>> after trashing the hit tv show "two and a half men," the actor angus jones, now back tracking from his controve
Search Results 0 to 19 of about 20 (some duplicates have been removed)